08e9230a
XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights,
talk.politics.guns
From: wy_@myself.com
On 16 Apr, 16:24, RD Sandman
wrote:
> wy wrote innews:fa2f4201-8c16-4b90-802d-031e
5e2a1fc@r4g2000vbf.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 15 Apr, 19:13, RD Sandman
> > wrote:
> >> wy wrote
> >> innews:d655b5a1-fc14-458e-84bb-8bc75cbb2083@a6
> > g2000vbm.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> > On 14 Apr, 21:45, "Scout"
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> "wy" wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:8af687c7-9637-4204-a0b0-6594fd6476fa@e13g2000vbn.googlegroups.c
> >> >>om
> >> >> ...
>
> >> >> > On 14 Apr, 12:26, RD Sandman
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> wy wrote in
> >> >> >> news:5d978267-11aa-41d3-ab47-8b86c12119b
> >> > 4
> >> >> >> @c7g2000vbe.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> >> >> > On 13 Apr, 18:17, David Hartung wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On 04/13/2013 04:36 PM, wy wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> > On 13 Apr, 17:05, RD Sandman
> >> >> >> >> > wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >>> In other words, you don't need a hi cap magazine for
> >> >> >> >> >>> anything.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> So? What does need have to do with it? Do you need a V-8
> >> >> >> >> >> or a V-
> >> >> >> > 6 in
> >> >> >> >> >> your car. Do you even need a 4?
>
> >> >> >> >> > When it comes to killing, need has everything to do with
> >> >> >> >> > it? How
> >> >> >> man
> >> >> >> > y
> >> >> >> >> > times and how quickly do you *need* to kill?
>
> >> >> >> >> Look at the wording of the Second Amendment, and then go
> >> >> >> >> back a lea
> >> > rn
> >> >> >> >> what the founders had to say about it. The purpose of an
> >> >> >> >> armed
> >> >> >> citizenry
> >> >> >> >> is to protect the country from invaders, and if necessary,
> >> >> >> >> from the government itself. That being the purpose, does it
> >> >> >> >> not make sense t
> >> > hat
> >> >> >> >> we arm ourselves with the expectation of facing soldiers who
> >> >> >> >> will b
> >> > e
> >> >> >> >> armed with automatic weapons and other nasty little
> >> >> >> >> surprises? IN s
> >> > uch
> >> >> >> a
> >> >> >> >> scenario, limiting the size of clips, could mean more dead
> >> >> >> >> citizens
> >> > .
>
> >> >> >> > America had a tiny army in the late 1700s, too tiny to cover
> >> >> >> > the territory of the time. �It wasn't even a full-fledged
> >> >> >> > nat
> > ion yet
> >> >> >> > i
> >> > n
> >> >> >> > the ordinary sense. �The second amendment gave the right
> > to bear
> >> >> >> > a
> >> > rms
> >> >> >> > for a militia to do the job of what the army couldn't do at
> >> >> >> > the time
> >> > .
>
> >> >> >> The antifederalists were against a standing army. �Addition
> > ally,
> >> >> >> the militia for the central government is covered in Article
> >> >> >> I(8)(15 16). The Second Amendment covers the militias of the
> >> >> >> several states by protecting the RKBA of the citizens. �The
> > y form
> >> >> >> the resource pool th
> >> > ose
> >> >> >> militias were drawn from. �Some of the antifederalist were
> > afraid
> >> >> >> of
> >> > �an
> >> >> >> overreaching central government overcoming the sovereignty of
> >> >> >> the stat
> >> > es
> >> >> >> by failing to arm their state militias through benign(?)
> >> >> >> neglect.
>
> >> >> >> Even our Supreme Court feels that the right to keep and bear
> >> >> >> arms is a
> >> > n
> >> >> >> individual right completely separate from any militia
> >> >> >> membership or participation. �See Heller v District of
> >> >> >> Columbia (2008)
> > and
> >> >> >> McDonal
> >> > d v
> >> >> >> Chicago (2010)
>
> >> >> > Heller is an incomplete case. �It was forwarded by SCOTUS ba
> > ck to
> >> >> > the lower court for further addressing, which the lower court
> >> >> > never followed up on.
>
> >> Not true.
>
> > Yes true. I posted the link to the story earlier in this thread.
>
> Neither Heller (2008) nor McDonald (2010) were remanded back to a lower
> court. The only one concerning militias and firearms that was remanded
> back to a lower court was US v **Miller** (1939). If you posted a link
> to a story claiming that it Heller or McDonald it was a lie or you are a
> liar.
>
> Who
>
> > knows where that earlier is in this thread since I;m not going to plow
> > through over 300 posts to search it out, but feel free to search it
> > out yourself.
>
> I have no need to. It was YOUR claim, you back it up.
I already did. I'm too lazy to plow through all my posts to find it
again. But if you're too lazy to do it also, then I win by default.
> >> >> >> > The militias were a deputized form of the army. �That's w
> > hat the
> >> >> >> > second amendment is all about. �It wasn't about giving ev
> > ery Joe
> >> >> >> > B
> >> > low
> >> >> >> > his gun just for the hell of it. �The concept of militias
> > was
> >> >> >> > repl
> >> > aced
> >> >> >> > by the Militia Act of 1903 which replaced them with the
> >> >> >> > National Guard. �By extension, the right to bear arms now
> >> >> >> > applies
> > to the
> >> >> >> > National Guard. �Not every Joe Blow in the country.
>
> >> >> >> Go read Heller or Mcdonald. �Hell, read them both.
>
> >> >> > The Heller decision was 5-4, a split decision weighing in favor
> >> >> > of right wingnuts because right wingnuts controlled the Court.
> >> >> > �
> > �That's
> >> >> > what makes it an invalid decision.
>
> >> >> So because you don't like the ruling you simply dismiss it?
>
> >> > Yeah, kind of like the rulings you dismiss that are 5-4 not in your
> >> > favor.
>
> >> Such as which ones? �He can't dismiss 5-4 rulings from the Supremes
> >> any more than you can as they become law of the land just like 9-0
> >> decisions.
>
> > He can dismiss them personally in his own mind,
>
> Which doesn't change a damn thing in the law.
>
> the way right wingnuts
>
> > like to do it, like with Obamacare - 5-4. It didn;t stop Repugnants
> > from passing a 34th bill to kill Obamacare *after* the Supreme Court
> > upheld it.
>
> The Supreme Court did NOT uphold Obamacare. It held up the individual
> mandate portion of it. Period.
>
> Damn, no wonder you have trouble understanding things.
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
